Trump Granted Authorization to Limit Refugee Admissions, however, Deportation of Currently Present Individuals Denied by Appeals Court
Hangin' out in the transit center parking lot, alongside other refugee families, I spent the night exposed to the elements, anticipating our journey to the United States. The next morning, they broke the news—President Trump had scrapped all plans for refugee travel.
A federal appeals court has weighed in, ruling that the Trump administration is allowed to limit the entry of new refugees, but they have to deal with asylum-seekers who entered the country prior to the president putting the brake on refugee admissions.
This recent court decision narrows an earlier ruling from a Seattle-based federal judge, who mandated continued refugee admissions. The ruling comes from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who cited existing precedent, citing a 2018 Supreme Court ruling upholding Trump's controversial ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority countries.
The court's decision focuses on an emergency appeal of U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead's order, where he argued that the executive's power to suspend refugee admissions is subject to laws already enacted by Congress, such as the act that established the refugee admissions system.
Whitehead also made specific mention of the difficult conditions that refugees often face when seeking asylum. In many cases, refugees would sell what little they had to make the journey to the United States, only to be informed at the last minute that their authorization had been revoked.
The International Refugee Assistance Project, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of refugees and refugee advocacy organizations, shared that many of their clients had been waiting years for their chance to enter the United States. Among them, "Ahmed," a student at the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul, who was finally "travel-ready" just before Trump issued his order. "Ahmed" has not seen his sister or met his youngest niece since 2021, eager to join them in the United States.
Another plaintiff, "Pacito," is a refugee who fled conflict in the Congo at the age of 13. "Pacito" and his family had sold their possessions and taken on new clothes and shoes for their new life in the United States when, the day before they were set to travel, they received a call that their flight had been cancelled. They had hoped it was a mistake. That night, they joined other refugee families in the transit center parking lot, trying to sleep outside amid uncertainty. After learning that President Trump had called off all refugee travel, "Pacito" wondered what they would do next, feeling lost without any direction or resources.
Whitehead also issued a subsequent order restricting the Trump administration's ability to cancel refugee resettlement contracts without cause. International Refugee Assistance Project's Melissa Keaney shared that her organization was pleased that the appeals court upheld many of the lawsuit's most vital points. "We welcome this continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States," Keaney said.
As of early June 2025, President Trump has reinstated and broadened the United States' travel ban on individuals from twelve countries— Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—blocking most entry by their nationals, including refugees. Additional restrictions are imposed on nationals from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. This policy takes effect at 12:01 a.m. on June 9, 2025.
Exemptions to this ban include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, holders of valid visas ( prior to the ban's enactment), certain groups such as Afghan Special Immigrant Visa holders or individuals with approved national interest waivers, and current green card holders. The rationale behind this policy is national security, citing executive decisions and reports from security agencies on "hostile attitudes" from certain countries. The policy has drawn criticism for its humanitarian and economic consequences.
- The court's decision in the case, regarding the Trump administration's refugee policy, was influenced by an existing precedent set by the 2018 Supreme Court ruling on travel bans related to several Muslim-majority countries.
- Despite the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, president Trump's policy-and-legislation on refugee travel, which narrows the admissions, remains a contentious point in the broader context of politics and general news.
